Correcting the voting systemAlan Dechert 29 May 2012

Prepared for

National Institute of Standards and Technology Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Introduction● Pre-2000: buggy system; industry touts DRE as ultimate

solution● Ford Carter Commission on elections, 2001● HAVA 2002: ill-conceived, poor result● Letter to Election Technology Council, 4/30/09

– Industry correction preferable, suggesting working with OVC for open, universal system

– Since then, 2 of 4 main vendors fold, ETC folds, OVC defunct

● Problem festers, time for government to step in, again

Voting system industry market failure

Voting system industry market failure has been due to the proliferation over the past 45 years of voting technologies that pose significant

public risks. Regulation has grown in an attempt to mitigate these risks – grown to a point where a customer might want a new system but the market cannot provide it.

– Letter to Election Technology Council, APR 30 2009, by Alan Dechert

What if it happened again?● Indeterminate outcome in swing state NOV 2012 could cause

chaos, possibly worse than 2000● Erosion of public confidence● Undermine legitimacy of president● Finger-pointing: Who's to blame?

– Election officials– Vendors– Regulators, State, Federal, EAC, NIST– POTUS

Move to universal standard voting technology

● Free open source software● Inexpensive commodity hardware● Paper ballots printed on-the-spot by voter, whether at poll site

or not● Accommodate voters with disabilities who vote at home with

reasonable accommodation● Reliable, accessible, accurate, unambiguous, simple, uniform,

transparent, inexpensive● Able to evolve over time as technology and requirements

evolve

Public software idea since 1988“Maybe a private foundation should do it,” Frederick Weingarten has suggested. “Maybe if there was a consensus among the states, the federal government could write its own software and certify it through the National Bureau of Standards or the F.E.C. say, 'This we guarantee is accurate and untamperable.'”

Penelope Bonsall, the director of the F.E.C. Clearinghouse, said of the public-software concept, “It's a public policy question; it's too broad for us to consider. It would have to compete with private interests. I don't know who would fund it. I just don't see how you would eliminate private efforts in this area.”

--- Annals of Democracy, Ronnie Dugger 1988

Update of federal position needed

● Should private foundation do it?

– May lack sufficient reach, authority, durability, and

funding

● Public policy question? Yes. Too broad to consider? No.

● Compete with private interests?

● Who would fund?

● Eliminate private efforts in this area?

● Is the voting process we are discussing a private initiative or a

governmental initiative? That is, who owns this process?

Possible role for San Francisco● OVC inspired Voting System Task Force finished report last

year● Report consistent with OVC concept● Board of Supervisors has expressed interest in open source

solution● Spent HAVA funds, but have on-going expenses with vendor

(now Dominion, since Sequoia folded)● Proposal from Tim Mayer

Possible role for Los Angeles● Very slow progress acquiring new voting system● Current system technically out of compliance● Still have $29M in HAVA funds received 2005; also,

$50M in state money available● Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RR/CC) plan

presented Jan 2011 after Board asked for update; already way behind on plan for 2015 completion

● Planning to build own system and get it certified, disproving need for voting system industry even in large metropolitan area (see VSAP )

● Closer federal cooperation needed to ensure that technology developed that can be used widely

How hard is this?● Tally sheets printed at

poll sites● Bar coded results read

into spread sheet (approx 1M cells for LA with 5000 precincts)

● Non poll site results integrated into same spread sheet

● Anyone can download accumulated results

● Anyone can compare tally sheet in result

Ultimately ...● Eliminate voter registration: use national database of US

citizens with additional attributes for eligibility & voter history● Allow voter to update address on Election Day● Early vote at Kiosk anywhere; voter prints ballot and places in

double envelope; label sticker placed on outside read at Kiosk updating voter history

● Overseas ballots may be sent electronically, if necessary, as PDF files followed by paper ballots to be verified after Election Day (as with Federal Voting Assistance Program )

● Optionally, within limits, may allow voter to submit new ballot on Election Day and cancel previous ballot

● NIST maintains and certifies open source code base along with list of hardware that can be used with the system

A Path Forward● A system architect with passion

– Cares deeply about democratic process– Understands existing and proposed systems– 100% focused on solution delivery

● A budget and commitment – Process must progress to next step– Delivery dates for review, trials, and implementation– Involvement from NIST, SF, and LA reduces burden

● Marketing and acceptance– Involve the open source community and tools– Web site to show progress, provide community forum – Social media for both input and output